How do you prefer shooting Fuji Pro 400H
I just picked up some Fuji Pro 400H. I've never shot this film before, but I have shot Portra a lot. Whenever I shoot Portra, I usually expose it at an EI of 320 and develop normally.
Regarding the Pro 400H, do you guys recommend me doing the same thing? Just wondering how you guys like shooting your Pro 400H
In my experience, it is a true 400 speed film, but does not tolerate underexposure well at all. So, like Portra, it doesn't really hurt to give it a little extra exposure if you're not in a controlled lighting situation.
I haven't used it in several years, but looking back at my 400H old pictures I notice two things:
1. The shadows drop out abruptly with careless exposure or under difficult (high-contrast) conditions. This might have more to do with the processing and scanning than with the film (I was using a commercial service, since I don't do my own C41 processing), but it tends to support the point Rolfe Tessem made: meter carefully or allow 1/3-2/3 stop extra exposure as a safety margin.
2. I don't like what 400H does to greens. It renders purples and yellows beautifully. This is a matter of taste, and it's not surprising given 400H's original market as a (wedding) portrait film, but it's worth bearing in mind when matching film to subject.
Same experience here. I bought 5 or 6 rolls several years back, shot a few of them and was disappointed. The rest have been in the freezer since except for one
I pulled out a few weeks ago to use as a test roll. I just never had good results with it. Ektar is my favorite C41. I use Portra when I need 400 and sometimes 160 when appropriate for the subject matter. My all time favorites were E100G and E100VS though. Too bad they're gone. I don't shoot much E6 any more now.
Originally Posted by idleroux
I've used some 400H and do like it, but have realized I need to learn how to use it. It is good film, but I've decided I don't like it with skin tones (if doing portraits - it's okay if people are incidentally in the photo) or with a lot of green foliage.
I've tried EIs of 400 and 320 with good results, but have decided that for me, the film "wants" certain scenes more than certain EIs. The results I like best are outdoors on overcast or partly overcast days (or general low/soft light), with brown leaves, trees, bricks, etc. Some green is good, but a scene with a lot of greenery seems to be a bit overwhelming.
I just do snap-shots, though, so I'm sure there are many who know how to use this film on whatever they want with great results.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In my opinion it likes being overexposed, I like how it renders colours more pastel that way. I shoot it at EI200 and sometimes EI100.
A lot of the photos on Flickr taken by Japanese photographers are even shot at EI50, 25 or even more. The colours will go very pastel then, which I like.
You should shoot a test roll at different ISOs and see what you like the best. If you want very saturated Ektar like colours or even portra 400, this isn't the film you will like.
I'd start wherever you shoot Portra and it should work fine.
Extra exposure doesn't hurt a thing with this film but isn't required and as others suggest avoiding underexposure is a good idea.
As to the color issues mentioned, yes it has a different pallet than Portra, and yes it needs different settings to print. That's a big so what moment for me; just like Portra, once you get it figured out its really nice for portraits or whatever.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin